The "M" motor is officially dead, no more unique/ground up M engines - BMW confirms all future M (S series) motors to be based on motors already in production

The "M" motor is officially dead, no more unique/ground up M engines - BMW confirms all future M (S series) motors to be based on motors already in production

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The "M" motor is officially dead, no more unique/ground up M engines - BMW confirms all future M (S series) motors to be based on motors already in production

So you know that awesome BMW S85 V10 revving over 8000 rpm giving somewhat of a direct link to the Motorsport division that seemed equally at home in an Italian exotic as it did under the hood of a BMW sport sedan? Yep, that one with the individual throttle bodies, over 100 horses per liter, that won all those awards, and that you could not get anything like it in a 550i, 545i, 535i, 530i, 528, or 525i? You know, a real unique M motor made specifically for an M car and only available in an M car? Say goodbye to ever seeing that again.

From now on, every M motor will simply be based on an engine already in production. That means whatever cylinder count and block is already available in a chassis is all you will ever get standard model or M model be damned. The M purist has been moaning about this for years that BMW M motors will essentially just become their standard counterparts with some different software but the head of BMW M (Friedrich Nitschke) finally officially confirmed the days of the unique M motor built from the ground up by the M division are quite simply, over:

So the engines will be closer to the standard engines. We already see that in the N63/S63 motors a good example being the X5 50i and X5 M. For BMW this means huge cost savings and that certain internal parts do not even need to be changed. For example, the same pistons can be used for both an M and non-M motor now:

So don't expect to see anything made by the M-Division like an S54 ever again. Or an S38. Or an S65. Or an S85. Or an S14. Those are not motors you can just slap different software on and simply call M engines. The M division is officially dead kids along with BMW's pride, get it through your heads.

Wait a sec, you said previously that the 1M was priced well... Regardless of this, how in the heck does a Black Series or a CSL have a "reasonable upgrade price" (Black Series being 44 THOUSAND dollars more than a standard C63, and the e46 M3 CSL being 85 THOUSAND EUROS, we can count that one out too as being reasonable)...

Now we say the CRT is just a car with a few carbon fiber pieces slammed on the car (and doesn't make difference to the weight vs. stock)... Let me explain something. The CRT is amazing. It has the 4.4 liter engine from the GTS (reason enough to dismiss your theory on anything cars), and a BUNCH of other things that do not come on the standard M3 (titanium exhaust, much better brakes, independent rear seats, etc.) - but yeah, just a few carbon pieces for an outrageous price.

Unfortunately, yes. The 30hp more don't make a real difference, and better brakes are certainly nice but don't make the car inherently faster (only better and more consistently to stop), and the titanium exhaust looks nice but doesn't contribute anything to the performance. You could add these things on a factory M3 for a fraction of the price and be just as fast.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Now, just to top all this off, you claim and imply that the 1M was supposed to be competition to the M3 by saying: "but the improvement over a standard M3 is marginal at best and it still costs double the price - for which you could buy cars that are much, much faster" ... You understand that these cars are not to be compared nor were intended to be compared - right? The price is not DOUBLE the price of an M3 - and it is NOT an improvement or otherwise against the M3. One has a 420 HP 8 cylinder, the other has a 340 HP N54. One is a 1 series, the other is a 3 series. They are totally different.

You misunderstood. The references were made if comparing the M3 GTS to a standard M3, not the 1M.

And yes, the M3 GTS costs double the price of a normal M3 and only offers a marginally better performance, unfortunately. And far less performance than cars in the same price range.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Then you claim that the 1M has an S engine...

I never claimed anything like that. Now you are making things up. Please read a bit more carefully. I know Sticky has reading comprehension problems, but it seems to be contagious.

I said that the N54 was during its development phase considered by BMW as an alternative engine to the V8. Had BMW chosen it over the V8, it would have put an "S" in its denomination, obviously.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Why do you argue with people when you just make up information? Again, this is just like the torque arguments. You understand that this statement alone is WHY you aren't "understanding" the issue with the whole thing. You don't just throw some production engine into a car, and call it an M series. THAT is what the issue is. Whereas before, we got bespoke/S engines in our M series, now we are getting "tuned" versions of the engines they (BMW) is using in their "regular" lineup. It's a cheap copout - regardless of how good or not good the N54/55 is.

I think that's where we are of a different opinion. For me the result counts, however it is achieved - for you and Sticky the predominant consideration is a not-so-well-hidden elitism claim.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

They can stamp an S on the damn thing, but ...

Just to clarify, the base price of a 1M IS LESS than the base price of an M3... You should be comparing the 1M against the 135i - but that would make too much sense.

It wasn't me who brought up anything like this, if you care to read a bit what I wrote previously.

I simply expressed the opinion that the 1M Coupé is - in my eyes - an excellent example of the genes for which M stands, regardless of whether it has a bespoke engine or not. And - for your benefit I write it for the 100th time - I never said BMW couldn't build a bespoke engine for it but that in order to be able to sell the 1M at a competitive price and to develop it in the limited timeframe they had it was not possible to do so. I had assumed that this is not so difficult so understand.

Unfortunately, yes. The 30hp more don't make a real difference, and better brakes are certainly nice but don't make the car inherently faster (only better and more consistently to stop), and the titanium exhaust looks nice but doesn't contribute anything to the performance. You could add these things on a factory M3 for a fraction of the price and be just as fast.

You misunderstood. The references were made if comparing the M3 GTS to a standard M3, not the 1M.

And yes, the M3 GTS costs double the price of a normal M3 and only offers a marginally better performance, unfortunately. And far less performance than cars in the same price range.

I never claimed anything like that. Now you are making things up. Please read a bit more carefully. I know Sticky has reading comprehension problems, but it seems to be contagious.

I said that the N54 was during its development phase considered by BMW as an alternative engine to the V8. Had BMW chosen it over the V8, it would have put an "S" in its denomination, obviously.

I think that's where we are of a different opinion. For me the result counts, however it is achieved - for you and Sticky the predominant consideration is a not-so-well-hidden elitism claim.

It wasn't me who brought up anything like this, if you care to read a bit what I wrote previously.

I simply expressed the opinion that the 1M Coupé is - in my eyes - an excellent example of the genes for which M stands, regardless of whether it has a bespoke engine or not. And - for your benefit I write it for the 100th time - I never said BMW couldn't build a bespoke engine for it but that in order to be able to sell the 1M at a competitive price and to develop it in the limited timeframe they had it was not possible to do so. I had assumed that this is not so difficult so understand.

Alpina_B3_Lux

You shouldn't backtrack - this is WHAT YOU SAID:

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

If there was ever a car with a worse value for money I haven't seen it yet. Not that it's bad as such, but the improvement over a standard M3 is marginal at best and it still costs double the price - for which you could buy cars that are much, much faster.

Alpina_B3_Lux

You clearly say what you say you don't here... I think you need to quit taking drugs.

Also, a CRT - again - has a GTS engine in it. It's not 30 horsepower - you are looking a PEAK POWER again. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. It's TOTAL AREA under the power curve.

It's kinda like the "small difference" between the 335i and M3 to 100 MPH that you just couldn't understand in relation to torque. I am sure you will just reply back saying "no no, you got it all wrong, you can't read, you are an elitist". However, I just can't stand it when people talk out of their ass, people correct them - they don't say "oh, my misunderstanding" - then continue to spew absolute BULL$#@! all over this forum.

You SAID the CRT WAS JUST A BUNCH OF CARBON FIBER PARTS "slapped" on the M3. This was not true, but you continue to make it look like nothing you said was wrong, so I will continue to make you look like a jagmaster, because that's what you are acting like.

It's fine to agree or not agree on a forum, however - this is a whole different level... You say things that are completely made up - and then wait until someone replies, then "forget" to address everything you said wrong.

I'm not backtracking at all. I don't know where you get this idea - apparently your reading skills are quite lacking.

And thank you, I know even better what I "said" (rather wrote, but let's not be too specific otherwise it'll get too much for you again). And you know why? Because I wrote it!

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

You clearly say what you say you don't here... I think you need to quit taking drugs.

Why are you talking about drugs? Ah, I see, you want to insult me. Well, I think that's rather childish of you but I think it's better to ignore immature people when they're throwing a little tantrum.

I'll be nice to you and explain it again, slowly, so that even you are able to follow.

I said (as you very kindly reminded me, you're really good at the copy/paste stuff):
"If there was ever a car with a worse value for money I haven't seen it yet. Not that it's bad as such, but the improvement over a standard M3 is marginal at best and it still costs double the price - for which you could buy cars that are much, much faster."

Now, again, as you didn't seem to be able to grasp it the first time: I was comparing the M3 GTS to the normal M3.

The M3 GTS is double the price of a normal M3. At least where I live it is, as here the normal M3 costs almost 70.000 EUR and the M3 GTS was priced at almost 140.000 EUR. For me that's double the price.

Are you following me so far? Otherwise I fear you'll have to visit elementary school again.

Ok, good, let's continue then. I also said that the M3 GTS is not a bad car as such. It isn't! It's quite fast. It's just that the improvement over a standard M3 is indeed marginal.

I can even explain a bit more to you why I said this. You see, the M3 GTS is not much lighter than the stock M3, in spite of what BMW tries to make us believe. And a few pounds don't do much for performance, unfortunately. Yes, it's got a slightly more powerful engine, and the area under the curve is a little better than for the 420hp standard M3. But 30hp is something that - if you already have more than 400 of them under the hood - you won't notice much. In particular not in a car that weighs in excess of 1.6 tons. No, the main reason why the M3 GTS is faster than its standard cousin is that it comes equipped with cup tires (or semi-slicks as you may call them too). That and a more aggressive suspension setup. Now both of these main points - as well as better brake pads - can easily be had with a standard M3 as well (for just a few thousand EUR), which will then be almost as fast as the M3 GTS without having to spend 70K EUR BMW tax.

So yes, I do think that doubling the price of a car and giving it only marginally better performance is a rip-off. So for me, the M3 GTS - as nice a car as it is - is very bad value for money.

You still with me? I hoped I spelled it out in enough detail for even you to follow me.

Now, on to the last bit.

For the price of an M3 GTS you can buy cars that are much, much faster. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it? For 140K EUR you're in an altogether different price league than the stock M3. In the same price region you could have bought a Porsche GT3 RS which would eat the M3 GTS for breakfast. Or an Audi R8 V10 for just a little more.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Also, a CRT - again - has a GTS engine in it. It's not 30 horsepower - you are looking a PEAK POWER again. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. It's TOTAL AREA under the power curve.

See above. The difference is marginal and largely attributable to the choice of tires.

A few carbon fiber thingies (hood, seats, trunk) and this is supposed to be worth more than 60.000 EUR?

Well, if you think so, please be my guest and empty your wallet accordingly. Personally, I think you're deluding yourself and have nicely fallen into the trap of the BMW marketing guys. But that's just my personal opinion.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

It's kinda like the "small difference" between the 335i and M3 to 100 MPH that you just couldn't understand in relation to torque.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I never had this kind of discussion with anyone here. You must be a very confused person!

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

I am sure you will just reply back saying "no no, you got it all wrong, you can't read, you are an elitist".

Of course. I have to do that.

If you're not even able to understand some very simple sentences and are raving delusional about something I am supposed to have written, I think I should point out that you're quite wrong.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

However, I just can't stand it when people talk out of their ass, people correct them - they don't say "oh, my misunderstanding" - then continue to spew absolute BULL$#@! all over this forum.

Me neither! That's why I had to educate you a little more. That way, this forum is being made a better place because you will stop with all these things.

Oh well, you probably won't, but hope dies last as they say.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

You SAID the CRT WAS JUST A BUNCH OF CARBON FIBER PARTS "slapped" on the M3.

I think I explained this sufficiently hereabove.

Feel free to read it again!

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

This was not true, but you continue to make it look like nothing you said was wrong, so I will continue to make you look like a jagmaster,
because that's what you are acting like.

I have to look up that word. Jagmaster. Never heard it. Sounds interesting!

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

It's fine to agree or not agree on a forum, however - this is a whole different level... You say things that are completely made up - and then wait until someone replies, then "forget" to address everything you said wrong.

I don't forget at all - I assumed your reading comprehension was slightly better, but that was clearly a mistake. Sorry for that!

I'm not backtracking at all. I don't know where you get this idea - apparently your reading skills are quite lacking.

And thank you, I know even better what I "said" (rather wrote, but let's not be too specific otherwise it'll get too much for you again). And you know why? Because I wrote it!

Why are you talking about drugs? Ah, I see, you want to insult me. Well, I think that's rather childish of you but I think it's better to ignore immature people when they're throwing a little tantrum.

I'll be nice to you and explain it again, slowly, so that even you are able to follow.

I said (as you very kindly reminded me, you're really good at the copy/paste stuff):
"If there was ever a car with a worse value for money I haven't seen it yet. Not that it's bad as such, but the improvement over a standard M3 is marginal at best and it still costs double the price - for which you could buy cars that are much, much faster."

Now, again, as you didn't seem to be able to grasp it the first time: I was comparing the M3 GTS to the normal M3.

The M3 GTS is double the price of a normal M3. At least where I live it is, as here the normal M3 costs almost 70.000 EUR and the M3 GTS was priced at almost 140.000 EUR. For me that's double the price.

Are you following me so far? Otherwise I fear you'll have to visit elementary school again.

Ok, good, let's continue then. I also said that the M3 GTS is not a bad car as such. It isn't! It's quite fast. It's just that the improvement over a standard M3 is indeed marginal.

I can even explain a bit more to you why I said this. You see, the M3 GTS is not much lighter than the stock M3, in spite of what BMW tries to make us believe. And a few pounds don't do much for performance, unfortunately. Yes, it's got a slightly more powerful engine, and the area under the curve is a little better than for the 420hp standard M3. But 30hp is something that - if you already have more than 400 of them under the hood - you won't notice much. In particular not in a car that weighs in excess of 1.6 tons. No, the main reason why the M3 GTS is faster than its standard cousin is that it comes equipped with cup tires (or semi-slicks as you may call them too). That and a more aggressive suspension setup. Now both of these main points - as well as better brake pads - can easily be had with a standard M3 as well (for just a few thousand EUR), which will then be almost as fast as the M3 GTS without having to spend 70K EUR BMW tax.

So yes, I do think that doubling the price of a car and giving it only marginally better performance is a rip-off. So for me, the M3 GTS - as nice a car as it is - is very bad value for money.

You still with me? I hoped I spelled it out in enough detail for even you to follow me.

Now, on to the last bit.

For the price of an M3 GTS you can buy cars that are much, much faster. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it? For 140K EUR you're in an altogether different price league than the stock M3. In the same price region you could have bought a Porsche GT3 RS which would eat the M3 GTS for breakfast. Or an Audi R8 V10 for just a little more.

See above. The difference is marginal and largely attributable to the choice of tires.

A few carbon fiber thingies (hood, seats, trunk) and this is supposed to be worth more than 60.000 EUR?

Well, if you think so, please be my guest and empty your wallet accordingly. Personally, I think you're deluding yourself and have nicely fallen into the trap of the BMW marketing guys. But that's just my personal opinion.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I never had this kind of discussion with anyone here. You must be a very confused person!

Of course. I have to do that.

If you're not even able to understand some very simple sentences and are raving delusional about something I am supposed to have written, I think I should point out that you're quite wrong.

Me neither! That's why I had to educate you a little more. That way, this forum is being made a better place because you will stop with all these things.

Oh well, you probably won't, but hope dies last as they say.

I think I explained this sufficiently hereabove.

Feel free to read it again!

I have to look up that word. Jagmaster. Never heard it. Sounds interesting!

I don't forget at all - I assumed your reading comprehension was slightly better, but that was clearly a mistake. Sorry for that!

Alpina_B3_Lux

If you think that more than 1 second - again more than a full second - from 0-100 MPH is marginal and due to tires, you are clearly a 16 year old who has no idea what they are talking about. Let me put this into perspective for you - at 100 miles an hour - 1 second is ~150 feet. That's about 10 car lengths. It has nothing to do with tires and not because it only has 30 more peak horsepower, but because those 30 horsepower are available throught the entire powerband, coupled with the weight loss (albeit not large, it's still 7%).

With me so far? (smiley face)

In regard to:

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

A few carbon fiber thingies (hood, seats, trunk) and this is supposed to be worth more than 60.000 EUR?

Well, if you think so, please be my guest and empty your wallet accordingly. Personally, I think you're deluding yourself and have nicely fallen into the trap of the BMW marketing guys. But that's just my personal opinion.

Again, this is what I am talking about. ONLY after it was mentioned that it was NOT only a few carbon "thingies" as you say, and has a completely different engine (which you clearly did not know or understand prior to this) - are you backtracking and saying this nonsense. Furthermore, you speak of "falling into the trap of the BMW marketing guys" - that's the whole purpose of why I am upset... The 1M was the start, along with the X5M, X6M, 135M sport, etc.etc.etc. - now we get an M3 with basically a tuned N55. That's what I call a marketing trap. People like you that don't understand that a GTS is MORE than a few "carbon thingies" - and look at other things (I mean, read the reviews of the GTS - these people are professionals) - are the same people BMW is finally realizing exist. Why should they bother making an engineering masterpiece if idiots like yourself can't realize them for what they are? You speak of price, but don't realize how many were hand built. This is totally pointless, you have a one track mind - and cannot see what you are saying yourself.

In regard to: ignoring me

You can ignore me all you wish, it makes me smile.

Debating with you is again pointless, you fail to understand the reasons for these cars. You can throw a blown LS1 in your 335i, and it will much faster than your current setup, but does that make it better? Do you understand that it's not ONLY about chassis - it's about both (as someone said) - but MAINLY it is about the whole package. When you put a turbocharged engine in a car, it has lag - and that's the point. It shouldn't because most if not all M series have none, and have insane/sharp response. It's not only about power.

If you think that more than 1 second - again more than a full second - from 0-100 MPH is marginal and due to tires, you are clearly a 16 year old who has no idea what they are talking about. Let me put this into perspective for you - at 100 miles an hour - 1 second is ~150 feet. That's about 10 car lengths. It has nothing to do with tires and not because it only has 30 more peak horsepower, but because those 30 horsepower are available throught the entire powerband, coupled with the weight loss (albeit not large, it's still 7%).

I never mentioned any 0-100mph figures. Then why do you bring this up? I don't care about 0-100mph figures. And people who buy the M3 GTS don't either, you know. I know several of these people, and they're all race track enthusiasts. And there, unfortunately, the difference is indeed marginal.

If you want a car with good 0-100 mph figures, you'd never buy an M3 GTS. The car isn't conceived for this at all. If you haven't understood this, then better stop posting about it because then you really don't understand anything. Sad, but true.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

With me so far? (smiley face)

No, not at all. But I'm starting to realise there's no point in arguing with you anyway. Well, some people just can't be educated - the more the pity. But as long as this makes you happy, please go on posting irrelevant stuff and proving you don't know anything. It is quite amusing, actually.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Again, this is what I am talking about. ONLY after it was mentioned that it was NOT only a few carbon "thingies" as you say,

Yes, thank you. I do remember having written this. And it's still true, even if you keep on doing the ostridge. (I like that image)

The modifications on the M3 CRT do not justify the doubling of the price either, just as they don't with the M3 GTS. That is indeed my point, even if you seem convinced of the opposite.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

and has a completely different engine (which you clearly did not know or understand prior to this) - are you backtracking and saying this nonsense.

It's not nonsense, you know. I was just focusing on the essential. While you seem to expect me to provide a list with all parts that are different between the stock M3 and the CRT.

Well, I don't want to. What would be the point? Most of that stuff is totally useless. That is what "focusing" means, in case you never heard that word. Prioritising the important things. I can see why that's not your forte, but that is not really my problem.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Furthermore, you speak of "falling into the trap of the BMW marketing guys" - that's the whole purpose of why I am upset...

You have my whole empathy.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

The 1M was the start,

Ah, now we're coming back on topic. Thank you!

I do hope the 1M was the start. Start of a different sorts than you have in mind, I guess, but still. For me, the start of BMW making affordable, high-powered and fun-to-drive cars. That's the spirit of the brand for me and the reason why I buy their cars. I'm not so much about what kind of letter they care to print on the engine block.

Shocking, isn't it?

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

along with the X5M, X6M,

Yeah, I don't like these cars at all either, you know. But BMW is into making money, as much as we'd like them to cater only to our wishes. And there's a big market with huge margins in that segment of high-powered SUVs. BMW can't let that be the domain of AMG and Audi only.

And now you'll probably go red in the face and ask: "Then why do they have to use my holy M badge and smear this god-given emblem with their bloated abominations?"

Well, the answer is simple, you know. They sell better with the M badge on it. Now, we can both regret that, but it won't change anything, unfortunately.

Let's better get back to the cars that may actually qualify, in the eyes of some (not you, but then you seem to wear some kind of M-sport-hardliner goggles), as coming close to the intentions of the holy M badge.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

135M sport,

Have you ever driven that car? I doubt it, as I seem to remember it's not sold in the US (where you are living, I assume).

Well, I did actually drive it. Last week-end, around the Nürburgring Nordschleife. You know, that famous track, Green Hell, blabla, I'm sure even you have heard of it.

And surprise surprise, even though I'm not too fond of the N55 either, but that car is serious fun, even without a mechanical slip differential. Fantastic to drive, actually, and only a little bit slower than the 1M Coupé (as long as the latter is stock).

The BMW engineers did a great job with that little car. It scares some of the older Porkers on the track, actually. Going up Klostertal I had to push some of them aside. You know, those torque-less natural aspirated engines of the last century.

If you ask me (ok I know you won't, but let's have some imagination, shall we?), that car wears the holy M badge quite rightly. I wouldn't call it a real M car, but it's got a fair share of the right genes.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

etc.etc.etc. - now we get an M3 with basically a tuned N55.

I'm quite curious about the new M3. There are so many speculations about it, I wouldn't dare making any assumptions about its potential.

But you seem to like making assumptions. Well, it's a free country (sort of), so you can write whatever you want of course. I would still recommend to wait until the car is actually there.

People like you have complained about every new M3, you know. It's called a pattern. That means when people are always falling into the same behavorial routines (look up the words if you don't know what they mean). When the E46 one came out it was all "oh it's ugly, it's too fat, engine too heavy, not enough power, blabla". Then along came the E9x, and it was "oh no, they've abandoned the wholy grail of straight six engines, front-heavy V8 arggghh, too fat blabla". And now along comes the F80 M3 and it's the same old. "turbo engines, oh no, the sun will stop shining, save me please, only natural aspirated engines are worthy of being M cars, blabla".

Why don't we wait and see?

But I take a chance and say that patience is not one of your (doubtless many) virtues.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

That's what I call a marketing trap.

It's called being clever. Going with the times. Adapting to market pressure. Surviving in a competitive environment. Again, look up the words if they're too much for you.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

People like you

Oh no, and I hoped I was unique! Damn! Now you've shattered my last illusion.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

that don't understand that a GTS is MORE than a few "carbon thingies"

Now you're mixing things up. I said that about the CRT, not the GTS.

Come on, make an effort! It's not so hard being at least a little consistent.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

- and look at other things (I mean, read the reviews of the GTS - these people are professionals)

Oh I know, I read a lot, actually. That's why I have such a vast vocabulary, you know. And it isn't even my mothertongue. But I disgress.

I have even been driven in a GTS. There are quite a few to be seen at the Nürburgring, so I had that chance. And I spoke to several owners. So my knowledge is not only derived from reading, it's even a bit more than that.

I'm just telling you this so you don't think I'm like you. I mean, speaking about cars you've never even touched, let alone driven.

Alright, that's an assumption. Feel free to contradict me there if you have, but judging from your writing I rather doubt it.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

- are the same people BMW is finally realizing exist. Why should they bother making an engineering masterpiece if idiots like yourself can't realize them for what they are? You speak of price, but don't realize how many were hand built. This is totally pointless, you have a one track mind - and cannot see what you are saying yourself.

Oh come on, don't call me an idiot.

We both know you only do that because we're on the internet and don't see each other face to face.

Did I call you an idiot? No I didn't. I insinuated a lot, but that's my writing style and I always compliment myself (if you don't) that it's done rather elegantly.

And of course I speak of price. Cars are sold for money, in case that's a novelty for you. So of course you have to put the price in relation to the eventual result. Wouldn't you do that? I mean, if you spent so much money on a car and then realised that you could have achieved the same with a fraction of the cost?

Well, I would. But then I wouldn't buy that car because I'm into informing myself beforehand about stuff I spend money on.

And why would the M3 GTS be a better car if it's hand built? That's not necessarily so. A hundred years ago almost all cars were hand built.

And no, I don't think it's an engineering masterpiece. It's a very well built car, obviously, and reasonably fast. But not fast enough for the price.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

In regard to: ignoring me

You can ignore me all you wish, it makes me smile.

That's great. I always like contributing to people's happiness. It's healthy to smile, you know. Even if it's just to hide your own embarrassment.

You know, like the Biscuit in Ally McBeal. Smile therapy. Ring a bell?

"I can't stand to be disparaged." I can see you practising that in front of the mirror.

And that actually makes me smile! So all is good.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

Debating with you is again pointless,

Why do you say that if you keep on doing it then?

I never give up hope, not even in your case. I know, it's a bit idealistic, but that's me.

If you say it's pointless but insist on doing it nevertheless, that is actually called an oxymoron. Well, not exactly, but it comes close enough. Look up that word! Comes from the greek actually. The old ones, not the new ones asking for money to bail them out.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

you fail to understand the reasons for these cars. You can throw a blown LS1 in your 335i,

Huh? Why would I put a supercharger into a turbo charged car?

Oh my dear, I think you should really, really read a bit more about car mechanics before you post here. It's quite embarassing, even for me to only read this.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

and it will much faster than your current setup,

I doubt that, see above. And actually my current setup is quite fast enough, thank you. Much faster than an M3 GTS as well, but that's not the point.

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

but does that make it better? Do you understand that it's not ONLY about chassis - it's about both (as someone said) - but MAINLY it is about the whole package.

Yes! Thank you. That's what I was saying all along. The whole package! I knew you would get it in the end. Ok you were somewhat reluctant, but now you're on board.

That is exactly why I keep repeating (you know, that's sometimes necessary, like with children, eventually they'll understand it) that the 1M is such a good car. It's the whole package!

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

When you put a turbocharged engine in a car, it has lag - and that's the point. It shouldn't because most if not all M series have none, and have insane/sharp response. It's not only about power.

Well, you know, that's a question of perspective (another of these foreign words, again, look it up) or rather priorities (...).

That means, just so you understand it (as from experience I now know that you're not so good at getting something that is not spelled out for you), that excellent throttle response is only one factor in a fun-to-drive car. Sure, natural aspirated cars have better throttle response than turbo charged ones, that goes without saying. However, that doesn't mean - at least for me, but I see you're getting red in the face again - they're bad cars or unworthy of the holy M badge.

Today's turbo charged cars only have minimal turbo lag (you know, like those Subies or Evos, I'd never drive one of those either). Ever driven a Porsche Turbo? Ok, the GT2 is another matter, but then they cranked up the boost on that one quite a bit. Even so. Or the McLaren MP12-4C? Insane sports car if you ask me, I'd take one over any holy-M-badge-car in a heartbeat.

Even the M5's main problem is not throttle response. Have you ever driven one? I have. The throttle response is quite phenomenal, actually. Ok, not as razor-sharp as the old V10, but then I'd not want to have that one back either, just for the throttle response.

Sorry to tell you pal, but you've got some big blinders on you. Putting natural aspirated cars on some kind of adulating pedestal just because of their throttle response is kind of one-sided, don't you think? There are so many other aspects to a great car than that.

Think about it a bit. When you're not red-faced. Helps to distance yourself a bit from the matter at hand, lets you gain perspective. I'm sure your therapist will tell you the same things.

This is what any high/luxury performance car manufacture besides BMW Gmbh should do. Without the constant crap Gov. regulations they keep selling us about downsizing/CO2/Carbon credits emissions & add more performance at a profit. Change the petroleum distillates fuel type for otto engines & most of this crap could be over (DPF, EGR, SCR, CAT, etc).. I would hate to drive a Bentley SS with a V6 if the downsizing keeps going + future hybrid batteries zap headaches :

No matter WHAT they do (in regard to the comment about lag and the intake/intercooler setup) - there will always be lag on a turbocharged car. It's inevitable. It has gotten much better than the old Turbo P cars of the late 80s/early 90s, but still - even comparing a 335i to say a G37/370z - there is a HUGE difference in response... It will never go away completely - it's physics. Unless there is some way to breathe through the turbo at all times and keep the thing spooled up at all times, there will be lag. An M car should have no lag, it should be a sharp instrument. You should be able to drive the car on it's absolute limit (cornering) - using the throttle to stay right on the verge of oversteer - this is not easy when the throttle doesn't respond appropriately to input. Yes, you will make up for this with sheer power, no doubt - but that's no fun in my book.

It is an interesting idea. Same with the variable geometry turbocharger which has the moving vanes. All very interesting combine both and you should have very little turbo lag. Of course it is extra bits to break and more complicated...
But having basically no turbo lag is possible.

There is still lag. It takes time to pressurize the piping running from the turbocharger to the engine's inletports.
So there's basically always lag as long as you don't keep the piping pressurized.
Reducing the volume of the piping (as the engine of the new m3 will have: the piping runs directly from the turbo on the exhaustside over the engine to the inlet with an heat exchanger between it) reduces this lag. (normal systems with intercoolers in the front have more piping volume of course)

you fail to understand the reasons for these cars. You can throw a blown LS1 in your 335i,
Huh? Why would I put a supercharger into a turbo charged car?

Oh my dear, I think you should really, really read a bit more about car mechanics before you post here. It's quite embarassing, even for me to only read this.

HOLY $#@!. YOU ARE A COMPLETE FOOL.

You literally just discredited yourself so badly with this statement, it's ... well, it makes me smile. And you tell me I need to learn about "car mechanics" after saying this. Unbelievable. No hope for some people I guess?

You can spend years writing a ridiculous/sesquipedalian post, and nothing (and I mean nothing) will allow you to recover from the sheer stupidity of the above/quoted statement. I literally cannot believe you are even serious.

You literally posted about nothing - but again, that comment will stick with you forever... If you only understood the irony of it.

You literally just discredited yourself so badly with this statement, it's ... well, it makes me smile. And you tell me I need to learn about "car mechanics" after saying this. Unbelievable. No hope for some people I guess?

You can spend years writing a ridiculous/sesquipedalian post, and nothing (and I mean nothing) will allow you to recover from the sheer stupidity of the above/quoted statement. I literally cannot believe you are even serious.

You literally posted about nothing - but again, that comment will stick with you forever... If you only understood the irony of it.

Time for some serious medication my friend? Or just not spend enough attention during reading classes?

There is still lag. It takes time to pressurize the piping running from the turbocharger to the engine's inletports.
So there's basically always lag as long as you don't keep the piping pressurized.
Reducing the volume of the piping (as the engine of the new m3 will have: the piping runs directly from the turbo on the exhaustside over the engine to the inlet with an heat exchanger between it) reduces this lag. (normal systems with intercoolers in the front have more piping volume of course)

true but a combination of the above would reduce it drastically imo. at the end of the day we all know smaller displacement + technology will win out vs.a large NA engine.

The S5X US engines get a lot of $#@! from enthusiasts, but it's the most reliable 'M' engine by far. For severe track use, a S52 E36M3 is really hard to beat.

That said, I am a sucker for:
S38
S14
S54
S65

All legends. The V10 is cool, but the S65 impresses me more. S65 is the ultimate M engine IMO. This new stuff will probably work well, but it's def not the same. That said, I'm sure these new cars will rip.

How many SLS does Mercedes sell compared to the M3 sales? How many GT3s by Porsche? How many 458s? How many Gallardos/Aventadors?

The sale figures of these cars/companies are so MARGINAL that the manufacturers can deal with the higher taxes related to the emissions. But even Lamborghini has to think about ways to reduce emissions on future engines e.g. turbo charging...

Um, it's a dinosaur? Yep, this looks like a dinosaur:

Marginal? The Mustang is Marginal? They sell more of those than all of these cars combined we're talking about. How is that possible by your logic?

The Netherlands as an example (tax and other car disencouraging rues) are irrelevant.
The CO2 rules and future overall CO2 reduction demands are set by the EU and apply thrue the European Union to all in Europe situated car manufacturers.
And thus are a global affair.
You might not like it, but that is just the way it is.

Does not mean you can't make an NA motor that meets emissions standards by any means.

That does not qualify you for anything. Lots of people are running sites about topics they don't quite understand. That's the internet for you.

No I think it qualifies me far more than yourself considering I have owned more M vehicles, read more about M vehicles, modified M vehicles, and also that my knowledge of the platform is enough to carry a site about it. Yours isn't. Hence why you are on my site and I'm not on yours, get it? That's the internet for you.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Yes I tried to, but apparently you're not capable of reading anything properly.

For your benefit, once again: Of course they could do it. They just won't, because it's too expensive to re-engineer an old engine, and NA motors in general are too inefficient emissions wise.

The example is not that they need to go get the S54 and re-do it but that they COULD do it. They COULD make a modern NA M motor but they CHOOSE not to because they would rather line their pockets. Get it now?

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

See above. McFly, somebody home? Of course you can. It's just not possible to do it and sell the 1M at a competitive price. That and the time constraints were the reasons they didn't do it. You always seem to insinuate bad intentions on their part, but I can see no sign for this except in your imagination.

What is a competitive price to you? And secondly, you suddenly know what BMW's cost is for these cars? How? You have access to what they pay for everything?

They make so many S65 V8's what is the cost increase really going to be? Any different than putting an N54 into it? Why? They both are mass produced. And this isn't a cheap car to begin with anyway.

What time constraints were necessary? The N54 and S65 were BOTH available at the time. So what the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Others have already tried to explain this to you in more detail. If you're still not capable of understanding it, I can't help you.

The problem is you are not capable of seeing that BMW could produce an NA motor that is competitive as many of their competitors do. Porsche increased horsepower, displacement, redline, AND lowered emissions. Care to tell me how they did that? OMG and with an NA motor too? Witchcraft!

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

See above. Read a bit more about emissions (worldwide) and then come back, hopefully more educated.

Don't sit here and tell me about education when you barely even grasp BMW history or what this means. Additionally, read about CARB and come back and talk to me. Who do you think has the strictest emission rules? Why do you think we don't have diesels here? You read up because you don't know what you're talking about and it's quite annoying to hear you preach when you barely have a grasp on the emissions topic or who has what emissions standards.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Each project at BMW has to comply with the current emission rules in the markets where they want to sell it. Not only in the US. No offsetting possible there, unfortunately.

Really? So regions don't get special editions? I could have sworn China recently got one, Europe got some special M3's, an M3 GTR was made for limited markets, what are you talking about again?

And this changes what regarding BMW being able to produce an NA motor that meets todays emissions standards? Because it isn't the impossibility you are making it out to be.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Yes, apparently. At least that's the only conclusion possible from what you're writing.

I think the more likely conclusion is you blindly applauding BMW as they continue to dilute their product line across the board. It's right there from the head of M himself, the M motors will be MORE like standard motors not LESS. Get it through your head.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

And you still don't see that you've fallen yourself big-time for the M marketing strategy. It's just you're 20 years too late...

That M should stand for Motorsport instead of marketing? You actually defend them straying from Motorsport? Really? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever read on this site and I've read some stupid things from some stupid posters.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

If they had called it S54 and put it into the E9x M3 instead of the V8 - which was a real option while they were deciding on the engine of the M3 - you would have loved it and called it a true M engine. Seems quite hypocrite to me. You're more attached to a letter then than to any real performance of an engine. That's rather sad.

No I would have said it's absurd to simply change a letter in the naming convention and call something an M motor just as I am saying its absurd to build an M car without an M motor. I'm able to critically analyze what BMW is doing, you blindly follow.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Nothing wrong in using good and tested (suspension) parts from the M3 in a 1 series. Why not if it works? If you want something bespoke, you have to go to a non-mass-market manufacturer like McLaren. Because even Aston Martin uses the same platform and engine on all their cars, and Lamborghini shares one with Audi, and so on and so forth.

An M car isn't supposed to just be a mildly massaged 135i. That isn't the purpose. You might as well just call it a 135is and call it a day. They are selling the badge here, don't you get it? Selling people on having an M car that isn't really an M car. It's a 135 on mild steroids borrowing bits from a real M car that were designed FOR THAT M CAR.

That means the 1M... simply isn't special. And it simply isn't an M car either. It's marketing, eat it up if you like but no real M purist respects that car.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

The E36 M3 started to sell in 1992, as others have tried to explain to you. So of course a major part of its development was made in the 1980s.

I know it's a real challenge for you to admit you're wrong anywhere. One can see that in any discussion you're involved. Not really a sign of a very flexible mindset, but if it makes you happy...

No, it's a challenge for you to read and comprehend. The E30 M3 continued racing competitively until 1993 and even in non-sanctioned events after that. The E36 M3 being "developed" in the 80's makes how much sense when the S50B32 didn't even hit the car until when? And what, you think development just stopped beccause the E36 was a replacement for the E30 was penned in the 80's?

This is completely idiotic to think, oh, the E36 M3 came out in 1992 that must mean the 1995 M3 that the US got was developed in the 80's. By default, that development took place in the 90's as a brand new motor was created for that car. Then those motors were also updated. The vast majority of EVERYTHING related to the E36 M3 took place in the 90's. I don't see how anyone can so oblivious to not get this. So not only am I right, you have no clue what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

You're just making yourself look worse by arguing where there's really no argument at all behind it. It's still funny to observe, though.

No I'm picking you apart quite easily. Frankly, it's amusing to see someone defend a company whose products have gotten worse, the cars have gotten heavier (efficient dynamic what?), and are now completely just making the M division into a joke. Yeah you keep that up! Soooo cool to see BMW just use the same everything in every car. So unique, so... M (marketing).

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

I'm having trouble with you calling everything that is not natural aspirated and not completely bespoke "not worthy" of being called an M car. That is quite a ridiculous notion and seems to point to some kind of complex you have.

I don't like many of the new M models either, in particular the SUVs. But taking it out on the 1M Coupé which in my opinion was a great idea is not justified.

I never said an M car had to have a naturally aspirated motor I'm saying the 1M is not worthy of being called an M car. If they did an S55 motor based on a tweaked N55, then we can talk. They could have at least done SOMETHING. They did nothing, they sold you a letter and people ate it up.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

I'm not contradicting myself at all, if you took the trouble to read my sentences carefully (not one of your strong points, I know, but try to make an effort here). Having a successful M car is not only about the engine.

My statement was, "So you admit the engine is part of the M package?" You agreed, meaning the motor is part of the M car experience. No M motor = No M car.

You're telling me an S62 V8 is to the M62 V8 as the N54 in the 1M is to the N54 ins the 335i? L O L. Which one was touched by the M division, completely reworked, and which one is the same junk with some different software? Which one took more engineering, parts, labor, testing, you think? Which one deserves an M badge? Well, probably the motor BMW M themselves labeled as an M motor.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Of course it doesn't. Just as anything you write here has no impact at all.

On the contrary what I wrote is being linked to on several other sites and points out how far BMW has fallen. Nobody cares about what you wrote whereas I'm highlighting a major change in BMW philosophy. One of these is more important than the other, you figure it out.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

I'm simply trying to explain some rather simple points to you. But this seems to overcharge you, unfortunately.

The simple conclusion is that M is dead and we will no longer have the special motors we once did. This is a fact, BMW states it themselves, let it sink in.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

That the V10 was based on some F1 engine was always just a cleverly placed rumour. It seems you also fell for that one and I feel a bit sorry for you. Apparently BMW marketing is quite ingenious!

Oh you poor thing, you don't get it. The V10 in the S85 was made as a link to the Formula 1 program that was racing V10's at the time. BMW marketed as Formula 1 derived which isn't a rumor. The fact is the block did feature the same material as the block used in the racing program made of silicon-aluminum composite that is also used in the S65 V8 which is probably why the S65 V8 weighs less than the S54 it replaced despite having more power, torque, and displacement.

I'm sorry, you don't know your stuff and aren't on a level to be speaking to me when you don't know the basics even. Do some reading, educate yourself, and come back.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Sure they do the racing. Just as with other companies. That doesn't mean that any parts are used in street cars or that the race cars are even based on street cars.

I agree that it should be that way, Audi and Porsche or Ferrari certainly do it. BMW does not have a real sports car in their portfolio any more, which is why they need to conceive some cars as the Z4 that look somewhat like street cars but have almost nothing in common with them.

See this is where you are wrong as the S14 was raced and that is why the E30 M3 got that motor. The E92 M3 got an S65 V8 because they intended to race with a V8 after the inline-6 was maxed out. Have you not followed BMW Motorsport history whatsoever? How do you not know any of this? This is kids stuff.

BMW is getting away with bending the rules currently with the Z4. I'm sure you support that as well. Rather than stand up and say BMW should develop a Z4M you probably pat them on the back for cheating. Once again, M has fallen.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

That was in the past. Nowadays for BMW it's different.

So BMW put in more effort in the past and now only cares about money at the enthusiast expense? Ultimate Marketing Machine.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

I never argued about the E46. Why do you bring that up?

Because of this thing called Motorsport which you seem to miss the E46 and E92 having a direct link to? The 1M having a direct link... to nothing.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

As for the N54 in an M car, why not, it could have happened with the E9x M3 already except that due to not having done a turbo petrol engine since a long time they thought it too big a risk and put it off to the next generation.

I don't know why you are speaking for BMW as if you knew what they wanted to do and secondly when you are so wrong. BMW didn't put the N54 in the M3 because it isn't an M motor it was designed for emissions purposes. BMW all along was going to put a V8 in the M3 since they did it way back in 2001. The whole plan was that the S85 was 5.0 liters and modular meaning the M3 would get a 4.0 liter S65 V8 and BMW could go racing again. That's reality, what you just wrote is made up juink.

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

It's not nonsense at all, it's reality actually. The M3 GTS was a ridiculously overpriced attempt to slam some carbon fiber parts and a roll cage into a car and call it a day. It's slow, too expensive and only a handful of cars were built anyway, so I'd never compare it to the CSL or the 1M Coupé which were cars for real racing enthusiasts.

The M3 GTS is some carbon fiber parts and a roll cage calling it a day huh? How much weight does it save over the standard E92 M3? Does it just re-use the M3 motor or does it get a special 4.4 liter version? The 1M isn't a car for a real racing enthusiast, it's for posers. The real enthusiasts aren't those counting pennies as you seem to be they are the ones getting the best drivers car BMW has to offer. And that would be the M3 GTS or M3 CSL, the best drivers cars BMW has ever made. The 1M can go ahead and limp home, as you should.

If there was ever a car with a worse value for money I haven't seen it yet. Not that it's bad as such, but the improvement over a standard M3 is marginal at best and it still costs double the price - for which you could buy cars that are much, much faster.

Had they offered it like the CSL or a Black Series for a reasonable upgrade price, it would have been a nice idea. But like this...they're really asking their customers to bend over basically.

Pay to play. You're the one talking about cost? I'm curious, is money a huge deal for you? They built the best M car, if you can't afford it, that's your problem.

Marginal improvement over a standard M3?

4.4 liter motor, M crank, power up to 444 horses all motor and max torque up to 325 pound-feed from 295 pound-feet and the torque peak comes earlier at 3750 rpm.

Limited edition, exclusive, not for poor people or like the 1M that anyone can have especially those whining about money.

All this versus the 1M that simply gets an N54 they have laying around and some parts off the M3. Yeah, the 1M definitely is the better road racer and had as much M engineering effort go into it. Are you high?